Isaiah, Michael Doliner, Ava and C.I. weigh in on V

So, let's see. We're supposed to believe that Obama came to believe his own campaign rhetoric, namely that he wanted to "extend the hand of bipartisanship to the Republicans." Think about that for a minute. Obama is a man who now wants to be bipartisan. Is this a big goal, a passionate desire -- the desire for us all to make up and be friends? Is that who we've elected president, the creepiest kid on the block? We are supposed to think that Obama cleverly divined (campaign rhetoric) that people voted for him because they wanted everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, to make up and be friends regardless of what anybody did to anybody. Nobody really cared about what Cheney & Co. actually did. We all wanted to just let bygones be bygones. And Obama, seeing that we all really wanted such a creepy thing, vowed cleverly to give it to us, not really intending to do so.

But now, carried away by waves of idealism, Obama believes his own campaign rhetoric in spite of a sprinkling of "guffaws by the cognoscenti," and stupidly actually does what he said he'd do, namely try to make friends with the Republicans. On how many levels is this insane? Did one single soul in the entire country vote for Obama because he thought he would make friends with the Republicans? Was Obama then really only pretending, as candidates inevitably do, to have the completely icky desire to get us to stop quarreling with Cheney & Co., but now, intoxicated by being president, is falling for his own rhetoric so that he actually has become that person who harbors that icky desire to brush all differences, however much substance they have, under the rug? Surely we haven't elected the creepy squishy kid everybody always wanted to get away from as president!? Or even worse have we elected someone who is trying, because swept away by his own rhetoric, to be that icky person? Ickiness as an ambition! How did the fabled rough and tumble of American electoral politics throw this potato up from the hopper?And then, and then we are supposed to believe it to have taken him an entire year to discover that the Republicans didn't want to be friends with him. Christ, I'd say that ninety-nine point nine nine nine percent of the country's, nay the world's, two-year-olds would have outdone the president of the United States in detecting the hostility of the Republicans. Can someone be said to "detect" a blade slashing open one's guts? If this is how long it takes for him to detect hostility what is his finger doing on the nuclear trigger? In a gunfight he'd be dead and buried a year before his gun cleared the holster. And this is the guy who is toe-to-toe with the Ruskies!? (Terrorists, whatever.)This is the Obama Cockburn wants to present to you. Is this who Obama is? If Mr. Cockburn's idea is anything close to real we are in big big trouble, not just because of Obama but because somehow the kid-who-no-one-wanted-around, the kid you wouldn't even want to tag along, has become the leader. Say what? You mean him? How the hell did he get there and what does it mean about us?

Thank you to Doliner. The column he's responding to is the one that I offered a link to and noted I was now delinking from CounterPunch and no longer interested in ever reading Cockburn again. That column was beyond embarrassing. It was insulting.

It really went to what idiots Alexander Cockburn thinks readers are. It showed so much contempt for readers. It was so insulting.

Turns out, he may have done it in an attempt to save his ass at The Nation which finds him too much of a 'downer' and are considering dropping him.

If that's why he did it, he shouldn't have. He'll get more attention being dropped by The Nation. More importantly, his releationship is with the reader, not with The Nation. Or was with the reader.

"TV: The weird and the weirder" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):It's not that you can't think too hard while watching this show, it's that you can't think at all.If you do, you'll surely wonder why Anna, who loathes human beings, picks her momentary mate from a list of aliens . . . in human garb. (Under the human 'skin' is the lizard reality.) Why would she want to see a large group of lizards in human costumes? Why would she herself want to make love while wearing the (confining) human costume? Hey, we've certainly engaged in a little role play with our partners before. But we've never dressed up as someone we hated.

This version of V is sort of like the 'intelligent design' version of science fiction.

But it can take comfort in the fact that some critics have proven even more stupid than many of the episodes. Yes, we're back to Troy Patterson. "Universal health care," he insists, is promised by the visitors. And this is supposed to be evidence of the aliens being based upon Barack? Does Troy not grasp that Barack didn't deliver even a weak public option, let alone universal health care? If you think the show's dumb (and it is), remember that some of the reviewers are even more stupid.

I haven't watched the new V. I did watch the previous one. I found it interesting and exciting. I've heard too much about the new one from friends to even be interested. But I hadn't heard Ava and C.I.'s opinion. I knew they were waiting to weigh in. I think the wait was worth it and I'm not the only one. I have a ton of e-mails from sci fi friends (I'm not a big sci fi but I do like sci fi movies and TV shows when I have the time) saying Ava and C.I. captured all that was wrong with the show.

I also think they did it very humorously. I was surprised when I read it today because it wasn't written when we all broke at Third. I know Ava and C.I. didn't think they had it in them because they were tired. They knew they were covering V but had no idea what they were going to say other than working in the freaks of Democracy Now during the first paragraph (which they did).

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):Monday, April 5, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad is slammed with bombings on Sunday, WikiLeaks releases classified video of a US attack in Iraq, Lie Face Melissa Harris-Lacewell gets some attention (not the kind she likes), as does another political whore and more.

Jasim al-Azawi: Saad al-Mutallibi, back in the 2005 election the ruling was that the biggest winner of the election would be called upon to form the government. Now the rulings have changed, the game has changed and, instead, the biggest bloc in Parliament will be called upon to form the government. Isn't that a manipulation?

Saad al-Mutallibi: Uh, I don't know. I wouldn't call it a manipulation. I call it a necessity of circumstances. In 2005, there was a clear majority to one political bloc, 132 to one political bloc. That naturally, that inherited the formation of the government which looked normal in the circumstances. Today we don't have such a clear cut. Nobody achieved majority. Everybody achieved minority, really. Unfortunately, we do not have a Constitutional Court. That was another failing of the last Parliament. They could not reach an agreement on forming the Constitutional Court so we have to rely on the federal court. The federal court ruled that if a group, by election, forms a majority then that group will be called upon to form the government. If no such group exists, then a coalition of political parties should form together to reach the 163 margin, then they will be able to form the government.

Jasim al-Azawi: Perhaps we should clarify, Mundher al-Adhami, that federal court is a left over from the previous government and this Constitutional Court Saad al-Mutallibi referred to has never been established, was never formed, although Articl 92 in the Constitution calls upon the formation of a Constitutional Court in order to have the jurisidiction over Constitutional problems like the election. The federal court is simply a one-man person. This is Madhat Al Mahmood and his ruling is not even binding so why is is that the government as well as all of the political rivals are taking heat from him?

Mundher al-Adhami: You know, Jasim, I am sickened by the whole process in Iraq. That's from the beginning of the occupation. These elites -- the new elites, the new political class created by the American invasion has been playing these games from the beginning. And while Iraqis are dying or they are [. . .] by an education, they are deprived of basic services. These politicians are after the one thing for themselves and they're not -- they can't even agree among themselves to share the spoils of this destruction of the country between themselves. It is a sickening process. This so-called court has been changing their mind every now and then according to the pressures applied by this quarter or the others.

Jasim al-Azawi: Since you mentioned changing of minds and subcoming to pressures and Saad al-Mutallibi is in the camp of the State of Law bloc headed by the prime minister, Saad al-Mutallibi, how conveinent for the prime minister when he was edging and he was leading in the poll he said, "The biggest winner should be called on to form the government." Now that he is lagging behind not only he is using scare tactics, the policy of fear, that unless there is a recount the country will deginerate into civil war. What kind of scare tactics is this?

Saad al-Mutallibi: Well, it's not exactly like this. What happened is that three months ago Madhat Al Mahmood ruled that the biggest bloc in the Parliament should form the government and Mr. Maliki was upset with that ruling because naturally he thought he would form a majority or gain a majority of the Parliament. But he didn't do anything about it. He just leaves it to express his feelings that he wasn't happy about it. Now the ruling has turned to his advantage, he has expressed his feelings again. And there wasn't any idea that people would right in the streets and going to start violence. Far, far from that. Actually the political, the security environment is not bad at all in Baghdad. It's quite comfortable. People are moving about daily life.

We'll stop there. The problem with waves of Operation Happy Talk is you're not always able to ride one to the shore. Reality often has a way of slamming into you before you make it that far. Such is the case with al-Mutallabi's ridiculous claims that Baghdad's "security environment is not bad at all". Yesterday, Baghdad was slammed with bombings. Focusing only on the three aimed at foreign embassies, at least 41 people were killed and over 200 were left injured. Laith Hammoudi's McClatchy Newspapers observed, "The blasts will color the intense political negotiations that are under way after the March 7 parliamentary election, raising questions about which candidates have the security credentials and the ability to cut across sectarian lines to lead a still-unstable Iraq". Alice Fordham (Times of London) quoted survivor Ali Sanz Ali stating, "I heard the sound of the explosion and ran out into the street to see a big cloud of dust and smoke. On the other side of the street, many cars had been destroyed and burnt. You could see the dead." Fordham also notes that the Iranian and Egyptian embassies were clearly targeted but the other bombing may have been meant for the Syrian Embassy, the Spanish Embassy or the German Embassy. Or it might have been a way to strike all three ("the third struck an intersection near the Germany, Spanish and Syrian missions"). Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) notes that they were suicide bombers who "detonated car bombs wihtin minutes of each other" at the three embassies with the Iranian Embassy being the third one attacked. Cab driver Abu Ahmed tells Prashant Rao (Australia's The Age), "The explosion was really strong. They never kill ministers, officials or heads of state. They kill tax drivers, public employees and shopkeepers. How much longer will this last?" Adam Schreck (Daily Record) adds, "TV news footage showed civilians loading casualties into police vehicles and ambulances as bloodied survivors tried to flee." Jim Muir (BBC News) explains of the near bi-montly Baghdad bombings targeting government buildings since August of 2009, "Each of the multiple bombings which have hit Baghdad over the past year has been 'themed' - clearly with the aim of conveying the message not only that the insurgents can strike several targets simultaneously, but that they can focus on a particular type of target each time." Martin Chulov (Guardian) gets reactions from Iraqi men and women such as Abeer Ahmed who states, "Security won't be sorted out here any time soon. Look at the situation. All our leaders are busy fighting with each other for good positions for themselves and leaving the country to drown in blood. My child refuses to go to school and how can I blame her. There are many parties to blame for this carnage, firstly the current government, which can't stop it, and secondly the regional countries who are not happy with democracy in Iraq." Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr reports (video link embedded in page) in the aftermath and shows much of the damage from the bombings.

That was Sunday. Saturday brought news of an early morning attack. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Gunmen dressed in Iraqi army uniforms stormed three houses overnight Saturday in a Sunni Muslim village south of Baghdad and killed 24 people, including five women, Iraqi authorities said. Most of the slain villagers belonged to 'Awakening' groups, the bands of U.S.-backed Sunni fighters who helped in the fight against al Qaida in Iraq. The attack occurred in Al Bu Saifi village south of Baghdad." Muhammed al-Obaidi and Timothy Williams (New York Times) added that the nineteen males were predominately Sahwa members and quote Luyai Khadum stating of his four brothers and father, "They were all killed. I lost five family members. We are a Dulaimi family, so why would they do this to us." David Batty (Guardian) revealed, "The victims were bound with handcuffs and sprayed with machine-gun fire. Some of the bodies were 'beyond recognition', according to a senior Iraqi army official who wished to remain anonymous." BBC News quoted Muhammad Mubarak stating, "A group wearing National Guard uniforms and carrying night vision equipment stormed the homes of the victims and took them to their front gardens. Then they handcuffed them with plastic tape and shot them in the head with guns fitted with silencers." Leila Fadel and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) reported the assailants arrived with a list, gathered all the possible Sahwa members, "looked through a list of names and then used guns with silencers attached, shooting people one at a time" and that the murders "were reminiscent of those carried out against Sunni Arabs by Shiite death squads from Iraq's interior ministry." Sara Hashash (Times of London) observes, "The massacre intensified fears of renewed violence as Iraq's two main political coalitions (led by Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister, and Nuri Al-Maliki, the incumbent prime minister) battle to form a government following elections that left neither with enough seats to rule alone." Meanwhile Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr wonders if this "could be the Iraqi style of negotiating." Today violence continued and Saad Abdul-Kadir and Elizabeth A. Kennedy (AP) reports that a family was shot dead outside their Baghdad home -- both parents and four children ages six to eleven. Two daughters, who were upstairs when the assailants came to the the home, survived. Reuters notes a Basra roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured and, dropping back to yesterday, that 1 man was shot dead outside his Mosul home.

Violence is in the news today as WikiLeaks has released "classified US military video" from 2007 "depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff" Nami Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Reuters has repeatedly been denied the video despite multiple FOIA requests. Al Jazeera interviews Julian Assange about the leaked video.

Imran Garda: Now a video has been released on the internet purporting to show US military personnel firing at civilians in a Baghdad square in 2007. Two journalists -- one journalist, Reuters journalist and his driver were killed in that attack. This video has just been released by the online whistler blower WikiLeaks. We can now speak to a member of WikiLeaks. Joining us from Washington is the editor of WikiLeaks.org Julian Assange. Thank you very much for joining us. So, first of all, take us through what exactly, in a nutshell, this video shows.

Julian Assange: This is a video of an Apache helicopter on the 12th of July, 2007 in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. It shows a number of things. It shows an attack on a group of people. Two of which are Reuters journalists from Baghdad. Those men are killed by 30 milimeter cannon fire. There seems to be some initial confusion as to whether those people are carrying weapons and that the Reuters' photographer's camera was a weapon. But it proceeds from what might have been an excuse for not concentrating too much, to something far more serious. When one of the Reuters photographers is crawling away, wounded, clearly he doesn't have a weapon, clearly of no threat and a van tries to rescue him which passes by and two children inside. That van is then attacked and the Reuters staff member, Saeed, is killed along with all the people in that van except for the two children who survived but were seriously wounded.

Imran Garda: Yes, I was --

Julian Assange: After that -- I'm sorry, go on.

Imran Garda: No, no. Please continue. Please continue.

Julian Assange: Just 20 minutes after that serious and disturbing event, a Hellfire missile attack is conducted on a nearby house. That from -- The roof appears to be under construction. And that attacks kills another -- by the military record -- six people. But maybe potentially more, anotehr six. The military say that insurgents went in that hour or lived in the house or went into the building. But our people have shown that in fact there were three families in that house and we have the records of some of their deaths -- including two women. And so on. It is possible that some armed men walked into that house but the majority of the people in that house seemed -- at least the majority of the people that lived there seemed to be regular families and we have evidence from the person who owned the house and photographic evidence of the Hellfire missile and so on.

Imran Garda: How sure can we be of the authenticy of this video? Not only the picture itself but also the voice over -- the voices we hear which I'm assuming are the pilots in the cockpit of the helicopter.

Julian Assange: Yes, yes.Imran Garda: Because those are quite revealing in many ways.

Julian Assange: Yes.

Imran Garda: How sure can we be that this is the real deal?

Julian Assange: As sure as one can be of anything in life. The material is internally totally consistent but also there was a Washington Post reporter [David Finkel] who was with that unit, the US military unit, on the ground, on the day. And he wrote a chapter in a book which was published last year, a book called The Good Soldiers which correlates directly to the material in that video, including to the radio transcript for the first half.

Imran Garda: Right.

Julian Assange: That's a strong correlation. Also Reuters conducted a number of investigations, interviewed two ground witnesses at the time.

Imran Garda: Right.

Julian Assange: That report really wasn't taken seriously by [. . .] 'It's just another few reporters dying in Baghdad.' And nothing to back up the witnesses. But now we have the video that shows the witnesses were correct. Also there was an Iraqi police report that Reuters says agrees with with their witnesses and all of them agree with the video.

Imran Garda: Sorry to interrupt you. Not long afterwards, Lt Col Scott Blackwell from the US military told the New York Times that, "There's no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force." You even mention that quote on your website and on the video itself. And, of course, when Reuters requested the video from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act, they didn't get it. With all of that in mind, do you firmly believe that there was a cover up at play here?

Julian Assange: They were certainly spinning the message and it does seem like there has been a cover up. The Rules of Engagement that were used for that circumstances, if the internal assessment was -- those rules were correctly applied -- and that is the statement the US military applied, that is the statement the US military made to Reuters, then those rules are a serious, serious problem if they permit such events. But-but there were clear lies made at the time and shortly after about the military not knowing, for example, not knowing how the children were injured and trying to suggest they didn't know how the jounalists were killed. And very early on they listed all the people killed -- other than the children -- as insurgents.

Imran Garda: Julian Assange, pleasure hearing your thoughts. Thank you fvery much for agreenin to talk to us here on Al Jazeera

One of the helicopter crew is then heard saying that one of the group is shooting. But the video shows there is no shooting or even pointing of weapons. The men are standing around, apparently unperturbed.The lead helicopter, using the moniker Crazyhorse, opens fire. "Hahaha. I hit 'em," shouts one of the American crew. Another responds a little later: "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.

In peace news, Afghanistan War veteran and Iraq War resister Matthis Chiroux has a new essay entitled "Beyond Flagatory" (World Can't Wait):Since my burning of the American Flag in protest of the war and the U.S. Empire, I have been called both a sinner and a saint. Members of my movement, people who I love, have published letters and comments both in support and opposition of what I see as a righteous and timely stance. Individuals have gone so far as to assert that my non-violent act of resistance to war and empire was indeed an act of war itself. I lament what I see as such a misconstrued analogy, and hope that in time people will see the folly of their condemnations. The struggle to end war and the struggle to end U.S. Empire is one. As long as the latter exists, the former will be an inevitability as has been demonstrated since our founding. For too long as a movement, we have divided ourselves and diminished our message, for the sake of public image, at the cost of enough blood to stain every flag in history. This cycle of violence will continue unbroken until a few are willing to stand against the many wielding little more than truth and a determined will to be free. I count myself among the few, but have faith that soon, we'll be the many. One U.S. flag and my reputation as a leader is a small price to pay for a message of purity that may bring an empire at last to its knees. I am no Martin Luther King, and shall not claim greatness before any person, but I will embody those examples left to us by greatness past, and will hold true to the cause of speaking truth to power, even if that power is embodied in my peers.We will know peace within our lifetimes, but first, we must know truth. Truth is not a process of negotiation; it is not a compromise and it is not consensus. Truth comes from within, and with it the power to create new worlds and lay those of old to rest. It also comes with great personal sacrifice on behalf of those who carry its weight.Matthis' actions were Constitutional and are not appalling. Appalling is not making a statement. Appalling is silence. Shameful is silence when you know you should speak out. Matthis made a big statement. Maybe if others would carry their weight he wouldn't have to carry all the burden? Matthis' speech and actions are not the problem, the problem is the silence. Cindy Sheehan did an amazing job responding to the nonsense attacks on Matthis and Elaine Brower. Matthis earlier wrote about his DC rally actions here.

Refugees will wait until tomorrow. Sorry. Ava and I have been charting Lie Face since January 2008. So when Melissa Harris-Lacewell is being 'reviewed,' we'll make room for it. First up, Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque):

Charles Davis (via Jon Schwarz) has an incisive take on the high fluttery flail induced in our imperial courtiers by the latest Tea Party tantrums. Davis demolishes a piece in The Nation by progressive paladin Maria Harris-Lacewell, in which she waxes lyrical -- not to nonsensical -- about the great threat to "the legitimacy of the state" posed by Tea Partiers disrespecting our elected officials. These acts -- spitting, swearing, insulting, shouting, etc. -- which might have been considered legitimate expressions of citizen anger (or at least good clean fun) if directed at, say, George Dubya or Dick Nixon, are now to be regarded as -- I kid you not -- "an act of sedition" when aimed at the ruling party.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell, whom Ava and I were just laughing about in our V review yesterday, earned the name "Lie Face" when she went on Democracy Now! in January 2008 (the first time) as an independent observer commenting on the Democratic Party's candidates for their presidential nomination. Though Melissa had begun working on Barack's campaign in the summer of 2007 -- and had bragged about that to Bill Moyers in real time -- and though Amy Goodman knew that Melissa worked for Barack's campaign and had discussed that with Melissa on Rev. Jesse Jackson's radio show before Melissa ever made her first appeareance on Democracy Now!, neither whore felt the need to tell you that Melissa -- raving wildly over Barack -- was not the independent analyist she was presented as but part of the Obama campaign. (Her second January 2008 appearence on Democracy Now! would find Melissa shouting at Gloria Steinem about how she was campaigning for Barack while "sitting here in my blackwoman hood body" -- yes, she often sounds as if she's on drugs.) Melissa, as Ava and I again noted in March 2008, would repeat her trick on The Charlie Rose Show -- somehow invited onto a journalist panel, Melissa would never mention that (a) she wasn't a journalist or that (b) she was part of the Obama campaign. She would make time to savage Tavis Smiley. She would make time, LIE FACE, to say people were outraged about Tavis. She'd forget to inform Charlie and the viewers that "people" were Melissa Harris-Lacewell and her online sock puppets (she used a lot of her college students promising them extra credit) and that Melissa was the one who wrote "Who Died And Made Tavis King?" She simply 'forgot' all that. Whore like that and The Nation figures you're perfect for their brothel.

Maria Harris-Lacewell is a professor at Princeton University, as so subtly alluded to in the above excerpt from her latest drivel for The Nation, and she's concerned about the "legitimacy" of the state -- a legitimacy she assumes but doesn't explain -- which she notes some backwards reactionaries have had the temerity to challenge in the age of Democratic government. Now, considering that U.S. government imprisons more of its own citizens than any other in the history, with 25 percent of the world's prisoners; that it has more military bases in more countries than any previous empire in history, and has killed millions of people from Iraq to Vietnam; and that its current head, Barack Obama, is openly targeting for extrajudicial killing Americans and foreigners alike, one might ask: why is a liberal magazine so concerned about this state's legitimacy? Because of the Tea Party movement, you see, whose flashes of racism and disrespect toward politicians is of more concern to Ivy League academics than the "legitimate" state violence they applaud. Tea Partiers, by accusing the current administration of "various forms of totalitarianism . . . are arguing that this government has no right to levy taxes or make policy," the professor writes, apparently under the mistaken belief that most taxes the state levies go to gumdrop bridges and fairy dust health clinics, rather than less wholesome things like aircraft carriers and daisy cutters. Rather than focusing on what the state actually does, though, Harris-Lacewell, like most liberals, would prefer we focus on their shining, abstract ideal of what it could be, while sanctimoniously dismissing those who see no distinction between state-sponsored and private sector murder, an approach befitting the wait-until-you're-called merit-class liberal mentality that dominates the Democratic Party and the progressive press. As The Nation's house political scientist explains it, adopting an argument that one could never imagine being applied to the left, "When protesters spit on and scream at duly elected representatives of the United States government it is more than act of racism. It is an act of sedition." Put another way: offenses against the state are inherently more despicable than any offense one could commit against some poor schmuck civilian. An overstatement? Well, no, as Harris-Lacewell herself demonstrates in writing about Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), who "is no longer just a brave American fighting for the soul of his country- he is an elected official. He is an embodiment of the state." Yeah, you know, before Lewis just marched in the streets against racism and state-enforced segregation as a (ho-hum) private citizen, but now he chairs a subcommittee -- show him some respect!

Poor Lie Face Harris-Lacewell. The old whore gets a little attention but the fellows can't remember her first name and call her "Maria." Poor Lie Face.

Dealing with another liar -- Rachel Maddow who refused to call for an end to the Iraq War and, in fact, spent years on Air America Radio insisting that the US had to remain in Iraq, now whores it up on MSNBC where, as Bob Somerby has repeatedly noted, she fixes quotes and breaks facts in order to offer 'insight' Rachel, AAR is no more so let's be honest. Every one at AAR management? They knew that was your father writing all those e-mails requesting that you be given your own show. They laughed at you, Rachel. They laughed at you because you weren't just a whore, you were a dumb whore. Having refused to walk out as Lizz did, having refused to stay away as Chuck did, you had demonstrated that you were the biggest corporate whore and having your father write all those lame e-mails only made you appear even more pathetic in management's eyes. Today Justin Rainmondo (Antiwar.com) takes on the Scott Baio look-alike's worship of authoritarianism:

How quickly these lefties forget. Intoxicated by power and by the prospect of smashing their political enemies using the mailed fist of the State, modern "liberals" of the Maddowist persuasion either don't know or don't want to be reminded of how J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was used as a political weapon of mass destruction by the Nixon administration to crush political dissidents of the left during the 1960s and 70s. White leftists and black nationalists were infiltrated, disrupted, set up, and jailed – the government used agents provocateurs to initiate violence, and then moved to repress these movements, jailing the leaders, and using massive force against antiwar demonstrators: remember Kent State? The FBI's massive campaign of disruption was known as "COINTELPRO," and the revelations of how extensive were the government's efforts to infiltrate leftist and black groups are generally considered shocking in retrospect. For example, at the height of the antiwar movement, at least a third of the members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), at the time the main Trotskyist group in the US -- and a key organizer of the mass protests -- were police agents, either FBI or paid informants. These agents actively encouraged violence, planted "evidence," and set up radicals for government repression. The same tactics, and worse, were used against the Black Panther Party, which, in a gesture unconsciously mimicked by today's right-wing populists, once showed up on the steps of a Sacramento courthouse armed with shotguns and posed for the cameras. Paid informants spying on the legal activities of American citizens, agent provocateurs, and outright dirty tricks (such as disseminating printed materials meant to cause division and provoke violence) -- it was an altogether shameful chapter in the history of American law enforcement, one that nearly everyone but the most unrepentant neocons agree shouldn't be repeated -- and yet here is Ms. Maddow, an alleged "liberal," celebrating its rebirth.